"The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
in [Relativity]
|
From: Riaper on 1 Nov 2009 12:20 "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light" (See also our sister website reticsessays.com) The idea that the velocity of light is the same no matter in what reference frame it is measured is fundamental to the modern sceince of physics. The premise started with the confusion resulting from failure of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to reveal an absolute velocity reference for space and shortly led to both the unique solution Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory and the general case solution (no Aether) equivalent - the Special Theory of Relativity. Since the conclusion that the velocity of light was constant in all reference frames is based on observation, the necessity of understanding the methodology of measuring the velocity of light should be apparent to all who would deal with relativistic phenomena. Velocity is defined as distance travelled (length) per unit time. If one wishes to measure the velocity of any entity, be it light or bullets, one needs in principle, a yardstick to measure the distance travelled and a clock to measure the time required for the entity to travel that distance. It behooves us then to examine the nature of the instruments which might be used in making the required observations. In principle, all measurements of length require the equivalent of a yardstick. (It is not suitable, for example, to define length in terms a number of wavelengths of light for our purpose since that would result in measuring the velocity of light in terms of itself, an obvious absurdity.) That yardstick is constructed, in effect, of an array of atomic nuclei separated from each other ahd held in place by electromagnetic fields ("virtual photons" are one explanation of the operation of those fields.) The atomic nuclei contains 99.95% of the mass(energy) of the atom and are on the order of 10^-15 meters in diameter. The atoms in the array are separated by about 10^-10 meters. To provide some perspective, a scale representation would show that if the nuclei were enlarged to the size of a billiard ball, the nominal distance between nuclei would be about 3.1 miles. Obviously the length of the yardstick is determined almost entirely by the characteristics of the electromagnetic forces acting between its nuclei. Similarly, time is measured by counting the "ticks" of a clock or their equivalent. The time between clock "ticks" is measured by the period of some type of resonant system. Such a system could be composed of the coiled "hairspring" of a watch and a balance wheel or it could be composed of the elasticity of the bond between two atoms and the mass of those atoms. In all cases, the period of the resonant system is determined by the spring constant acting in the resonant system and the significant mass of that system. In other words, with regard to relativistic effects, what is true of one type of clock is true for all types of clocks! Let us then consider what would happen if the velocity of light in free space were to change. Since the atomic nuclei of the yardstick control their separation by electromagnetic means, the nuclei would sense that their separation was now "wrong" and they would move to correct the error. thus causing the yardstick to change its length. The stiffness of the clocks "hairspring" is also determined electromagnetic means and the mass of the "balance wheel" is determined by the energy represented by that mass and the velocity of light in accordance with M=E/C^2! The result would be that the postulated change in the velocity of light should change the calibration of the clock. If the Principle of Relativity is applicable, as indeed it must be if the Laws of Physics are to be the same in all velocity and elevation reference frames, then the length of our yardsticks and the speed of our clocks must change as a result of the postulated change in the free space velocity of light. Moreover, that change must be such that a measurement of the velocity of light would be produce the same value regardless of the reference frame (velocity, elevation) in which it was measured. This would occur because the units of measurement by which the velocity of light is measured would change to conceal any actual change in that velocity. Any measurement of the velocity of light that we may care to make is actually a measurement of the velocity of light in terms of the velocity of light. Such a measurement is clearly meaningless. The quantity we accept as the velocity of light probably results from the dimensionaless Fine Structure Constant which reveals the velocity of light in terms of the dielectric constant of space. To add perspective to the discussion. It is axiomatic that every process which involves obeying physical laws (including the "constancy" of the velocity of light and the length of our "yardsticks" must contain the following steps. 1:- It must measure the magnitude of the quantity in question. 2:- It must compare the measured quantity with its nominal value. 3:- It must apply the necessary "force" to reduce any error towards zero. This is not an invention of the writer. It is a requirement of any stable process. The framers of relativity theory missed the boat in not digging deeply enough. It is not enough to accept the Principle of Relativity. The question they should have asked is why does the Principle of Relativity hold. Such a question leads to the very obvious answer that it holds because matter uses the velocity of light to control its parameters. One need only to add the proviso that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light and the mysteries of SR vanish (providing one is not too lazy to follow the reasoning through to its conclusion). In the case of gravity, the effects of a change in the velocity of light between reference frames which differ in elevation is immediately obvious, it is called gravity. Gravity results because proximity to energy causes an increase in the "absolute" permeabilty of the Aether. All of the known gravitational effects can be shown to follow from this change. Space is not "curved". See http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm. The source material for this posting may be found in http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS. All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm. Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary. E-mail:- einsteinhoax(a)verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that your mail reception is not blocked. The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided.
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 15:27 "Riaper" <riaper(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:jrjHm.2951$Yy6.2908(a)newsfe02.iad... > "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light" > > (See also our sister website reticsessays.com) More nonsense. Does it never stop?
From: glird on 11 Nov 2009 12:38 On Nov 1, 3:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Riaper" <ria...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:jrjHm.2951$Yy6.2908(a)newsfe02.iad... > > > "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light" > > > (See also our sister website reticsessays.com) > > More nonsense. Does it never stop? THIS time it was not nonsense; it was very sensible..
From: glird on 11 Nov 2009 14:10 On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, "Riaper" wrote: > "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light" > >< Since the conclusion that the velocity of light was constant in all reference frames is based on observation, the necessity of understanding the methodology of measuring the velocity of light should be apparent to all who would deal with relativistic phenomena. > That the velocity of light is constant in all reference frames was NOT "based on" observations; it was POSTULATED by Einstein and verified later. >< Velocity is defined as distance traveled (length) per unit time. If one wishes to measure the velocity of any entity, be it light or bullets, one needs in principle, a yardstick to measure the distance traveled and a clock to measure the time required for the entity to travel that distance. > One needs two clocks, one where the entity is at the front of the distance and another at the other end. >< It behooves us then to examine the nature of the instruments which might be used in making the required observations. In principle, all measurements of length require the equivalent of a yardstick. ... That yardstick is constructed, in effect, of an array of atomic nuclei separated from each other and held in place by electromagnetic fields ... . The atomic nuclei contains 99.95% of the mass(energy) of the atom and are on the order of 10^-15 meters in diameter. The atoms in the array are separated by about 10^-10 meters. To provide some perspective, a scale representation would show that if the nuclei were enlarged to the size of a billiard ball, the nominal distance between nuclei would be about 3.1 miles. Obviously the length of the yardstick is determined almost entirely by the characteristics of the electromagnetic forces acting between its nuclei. > Correct. THAT's why Lorentz found that the length of a stick that is moving through the electromagnetized material filling a local space would physically contract. >< Similarly, time is measured by counting the "ticks" of a clock or their equivalent. The time between clock "ticks" is measured by the period of some type of resonant system. Such a system could be composed of the coiled "hairspring" of a watch and a balance wheel or it could be composed of the elasticity of the bond between two atoms and the mass of those atoms. In all cases, the period of the resonant system is determined by the spring constant acting in the resonant system and the significant mass of that system. In other words, with regard to relativistic effects, what is true of one type of clock is true for all types of clocks! Let us then consider what would happen if the velocity of light in free space were to change. Since the atomic nuclei of the yardstick control their separation by electromagnetic means, the nuclei would sense that their separation was now "wrong" and they would move to correct the error; thus causing the yardstick to change its length. The stiffness of the clocks "hairspring" is also determined by electromagnetic means and the [weight] of the "balance wheel" is determined by the energy represented by that mass and the velocity of light in accordance with M=E/C^2! The result would be that the postulated change in the velocity of light should change the calibration of the clock. If the Principle of Relativity is applicable, as indeed it must be if the Laws of Physics are to be the same in all velocity and elevation reference frames, then the length of our yardsticks and the speed of our clocks must change as a result of the postulated change in the free space velocity of light. Moreover, that change must be such that a measurement of the velocity of light would be produce the same value regardless of the reference frame (velocity, elevation) in which it was measured. This would occur because the units of measurement by which the velocity of light is measured would change to conceal any actual change in that velocity. > Right conclusion, but for the wrong reason! Yes, the units of measure of length and time would change, and the round-trip speed of light would remain constant as measured with them; but the one-way outbound time in the direction of motion would differ from the one-way inbound time. In order to overcome this defect, Einstein POSTULATED that clocks of any system are to be set to MEASURE the speed of light as constant in all directions even if it isn't. Obviously, the use of clocks so set will find that c is constant in all directions regardless of how the system's are moving wrt the luminiferous space. >< Any measurement of the velocity of light that we may care to make is actually a measurement of the velocity of light in terms of the velocity of light. Such a measurement is clearly meaningless. > Right conclusion regardless of whether or not its premise is. >< The quantity we accept as the velocity of light probably results from the dimensionless Fine Structure Constant which reveals the velocity of light in terms of the dielectric constant of space. > Given that all presently accepted theories as to what light IS, thus how it works, are false, the fact that Oej Yve/ is wrong here is understandable. Even so, he is almost right. (Although "space" has no dielectric constant, which is a property of the extremely dilute matter that fills a vacuum, the velocity of light IS a result of the Fine structure constant (Fs), as shown by the following equation, in which h denotes Plank's quantum of action, m is the weight of an electron in an atom, r is the radius of its orbital path therein, and c' is its speed in that very dense material: h = 2 pi r m c'. Note that c' = cFs; which means that the actual speed of light IS controlled by the fine structure constant - coupled with the variable density of the local material. >< To add perspective to the discussion. It is axiomatic that every process which involves obeying physical laws (including the "constancy" of the velocity of light and the length of our "yardsticks") must contain the following steps. 1:- It must measure the magnitude of the quantity in question. 2:- It must compare the measured quantity with its nominal value. 3:- It must apply the necessary "force" to reduce any error towards zero. This is not an invention of the writer. It is a requirement of any stable process. The framers of relativity theory missed the boat in not digging deeply enough. It is not enough to accept the Principle of Relativity. The question they should have asked is why does the Principle of Relativity hold. Such a question leads to the very obvious answer that it holds because matter uses the velocity of light to control its parameters. > Plus that Physics uses Einstein's method of setting clocks and then uses those esynched clocks to measure the parameters. <One need only to add the proviso that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light and the mysteries of SR vanish (providing one is not too lazy to follow the reasoning through to its conclusion). In the case of gravity, the effects of a change in the velocity of light between reference frames which differ in elevation is immediately obvious, it is called gravity. > It is neither obvious nor understood by scientists. Neither is gravity. >< Gravity results because proximity to energy causes an increase in the "absolute" permeabilty of the Aether. > Bullshit. >< All of the known gravitational effects can be shown to follow from this change. . Step One: Define "energy" and 'permeability". Step Two: Show HOW "proximity" to energy causes the permeability of the local material Aether to change. Step Three: Show how a change in the permeability of the Aether causes an object to have weight; and why the weight of different objects in a given field isn't constant even if each object is a given distance from the center of that Aether-filled space. >< Space is not "curved". > Define "Space". glird
From: DW on 11 Nov 2009 14:42 On Nov 11, 8:10 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 12:20 pm, "Riaper" wrote:> "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light" > > >< Since the conclusion that the velocity of light was constant in all reference frames is based on observation, the necessity of understanding the methodology of measuring the > > velocity of light should be apparent to all who would deal with > relativistic phenomena. > > > That the velocity of light is constant in all reference frames was > NOT "based on" observations; it was POSTULATED by Einstein and > verified later. wrong, the velocity of light cannot be measured by definition and else at best you measure time, which cant be done neither, but only ordered sequence of pulses, which are events rest of misconceptions mercifully snipped
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: The REAL reason they hate Einstein. Next: Two clocks; one moving past the other at high speed |